My whole take on stats and sabermetrics is that every stat is pretty much worthless on its own and that every stat is worth considering when looking at the grand scheme of things.

For a pitcher, wins and saves are pretty worthless stats in and of themselves but they are not completely worthless. If a guy has 40 saves with a sub two ERA and low WHIP, hey, that's pretty impressive. Conversely, if a guy is like Joe Borowski and has 40 saves with a 5 something ERA, that's not so impressive. The same thing is true with wins, but I will say that I think there is something telling about a guy who is capable of winning a lot of games or saving a lot of games regardless of what his other numbers are. It might not be saying much but it says something. Maybe it's just that he is on a good team.

One of the weaknesses of sabermetrics is that while they were created to challenge conventional wisdom, I think that they have created a new conventional wisdom that some people are as enslaved by as others were/are by old school conventional wisdom. I also think that some devotees of sabermetrics shout louder than others, which makes it more tempting to ignore/dismiss them.

Every stat is just a tool at understanding the game and I think too often people get bogged down in understanding one aspect of it and lose sight of the whole picture.

I could have bolded the entire post, I thought it was that good. In fact I hope you don't mind but I'm going to bookmark this and save it for future reference. You have distilled the argument down to its essence.

EDIT - OK, nobody is asking you to apologize for HOOOOW your team wins; basically what you've said here is that you prefer to root for a team that wins 95 games with a good offense and mediocre pitching staff over a team that wins 75 games with a good pitching staff and a ****ty offense. Having just spent a year watching the 2013 White Sox, I'm sure we can all relate. The idea that wins are meaningless is ONLY IN THE CONTEXT of comparing two, INDIVIDUAL pitchers to one another. So yes, while we can all agree that we'd much rather root for the team that wins more games, we can also agree that if given the choice, we'd take the 10-game winner, 2.50 ERA pitcher over the 20 W/3.50 ERA pitcher because it's extremely likely that the difference in wins has nothing to do with their individual abilities, but rather things that are completely out of their control; their offenses, their bullpens, etc. That's why people don't give a **** about wins AS AN INDIVIDUAL STAT FOR RATING PITCHERS.

Your argument is basically that you'd rather have Jeremy Guthrie and his 15 wins and 4.04 ERA, 1.39 WHIP, 4.7 K/9 IP etc. over Chris Sale and his 11 wins and 3.07 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 9.5 K/IP becasue, WINS... Guthrie is obviously a 36% better pitcher than Sale because he won 36% more games than he did. And anyone who would argue that would be a lunatic.

My argument is that when I look back at the season, I would rather have the wins than the otherwise better stat line.

If I'm building a team for the future, I am looking at what I think a pitcher can do. That includes innings pitched, the ability to shut down teams the half-inning after the offense has scored (there are pitchers who are consistently challenged with such), the ability to pitch in close games, not lose composure after giving up a home run etc. I am looking at things other than his numbers because my ultimate goal is to win games and winning requires more than plugging in stats.

If I'm looking at a bullpen, I know that there are pitchers who, regardless of their stuff, regardless of their numbers, have trouble consistently closing out games. Everyone who watches baseball sees it. The stat line does not exist in isolation. For one thing, closers rarely pitch half as many innings as their team plays games, so the outlier bad outings can skew their ERAs. In 2013, almost one-third of the earned runs Reed gave up were surrendered in two appearances. And in one of those appearances, he ended up helping the team win after blowing the lead. For another, I've seen plenty of pitchers who have been lights out in the eighth who turned out to be failed closers.

I'd love to see you construct your baseball team in which you don't believe the bullpen is important. I'm sure every other baseball organization would as well since they would get to play against that team...

For a pitcher, wins and saves are pretty worthless stats in and of themselves but they are not completely worthless. If a guy has 40 saves with a sub two ERA and low WHIP, hey, that's pretty impressive. Conversely, if a guy is like Joe Borowski and has 40 saves with a 5 something ERA, that's not so impressive. The same thing is true with wins, but I will say that I think there is something telling about a guy who is capable of winning a lot of games or saving a lot of games regardless of what his other numbers are. It might not be saying much but it says something. Maybe it's just that he is on a good team.

This is mind boggling, you've just articulated perfectly why saves are such a pointless stat, that a guy can dominate and another one can be ****ty and wind up with the same number. This is so maddeningly logically inconsistent, it's insane.

Here, we've been over this before, here's the Stats 101 Guide to How to Discern "Good Stats" from "Bad Stats"

I'd love to see you construct your baseball team in which you don't believe the bullpen is important. I'm sure every other baseball organization would as well since they would get to play against that team...

Mercy.

Saying saves are not important =/= Saying bullpen is not important... Much in the same way saying a pitcher's win-loss record is not important =/= starting pitching is not important... Or saying runs batted in are not important =/= saying having good hitters at the top and middle of your lineup is not important.

These are all key components of a winning baseball team. Just those ways to analyze them are stupid.

I'd love to see you construct your baseball team in which you don't believe the bullpen is important. I'm sure every other baseball organization would as well since they would get to play against that team...

This is mind boggling, you've just articulated perfectly why saves are such a pointless stat, that a guy can dominate and another one can be ****ty and wind up with the same number. This is so maddeningly logically inconsistent, it's insane.

Here, we've been over this before, here's the Stats 101 Guide to How to Discern "Good Stats" from "Bad Stats"

My argument would be that there is no such thing as a good stat or a bad stat (though I reserve the right to change my mind), all stats tell a part of a picture. Some stats might tell more of a complete story than another, but I would argue that even the good stats need to be taken within context. A guy with a high OBP and nothing else isn't that valuable, nor is a guy with a high K per 9 and a high ERA (like Carlos Marmol), even a guy with a good BABIP and low average isn't that valuable. A guy like Beckham has a good BABIP because he has so many weak groundouts to the shortstop or pitcher.

My argument would be that there is no such thing as a good stat or a bad stat (though I reserve the right to change my mind), all stats tell a part of a picture. Some stats might tell more of a complete story than another, but I would argue that even the good stats need to be taken within context. A guy with a high OBP and nothing else isn't that valuable, nor is a guy with a high K per 9 and a high ERA (like Carlos Marmol), even a guy with a good BABIP and low average isn't that valuable. A guy like Beckham has a good BABIP because he has so many weak groundouts to the shortstop or pitcher.

So even the "good stats" can be as misleading as the "bad stats."

Nobody is arguing that point with you. Notice how I did not say that a good stat doesn't mean it can be used in a vacuum without any context; it just means that it is a reliable and as accurate as possible quantification of a player's individual performance, as opposed to bad stats, which rely HEAVILY on the outside influence of other people or situations. Just because I think OBP is a good stat doesn't mean I think you can just rank all the players in the league by OBP and that's your list of players, best to worst, it means that OBP is a good tool to use in player evaluation.

Also, I don't think you understand how BABIP works, groundouts to anybody would still count against BABIP

Nobody is arguing that point with you. Notice how I did not say that a good stat doesn't mean it can be used in a vacuum without any context; it just means that it is a reliable and as accurate as possible quantification of a player's individual performance, as opposed to bad stats, which rely HEAVILY on the outside influence of other people or situations. Just because I think OBP is a good stat doesn't mean I think you can just rank all the players in the league by OBP and that's your list of players, best to worst, it means that OBP is a good tool to use in player evaluation.

Also, I don't think you understand how BABIP works, groundouts to anybody would still count against BABIP

I though BABIP is batting average on balls put in play, my understanding is that a normal BABIP is usually .300 so if a guy had a BABIP of .250 or something you could look at that and say "Oh, he is hitting into some bad luck," my point was that it doesn't distinguish between a line shot that right at someone and a weak groundout. It also doesn't tell you if defenses are shifting, etc.

I get your overall point and I know from your previous posts you tend not to take them in a vaccum, I think my point is that there aren't any really good stats or bad stats. The stats that don't rely on outside performance can be as misleading as the ones that do.

I though BABIP is batting average on balls put in play, my understanding is that a normal BABIP is usually .300 so if a guy had a BABIP of .250 or something you could look at that and say "Oh, he is hitting into some bad luck," my point was that it doesn't distinguish between a line shot that right at someone and a weak groundout. It also doesn't tell you if defenses are shifting, etc.

OK, I kind of see what you are saying, yeah. I think your confusion is that a high BABIP isn't seen as a good thing, it's generally a warning sign that a player's current production is not sustainable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187

I get your overall point and I know from your previous posts you tend not to take them in a vaccum, I think my point is that there aren't any really good stats or bad stats. The stats that don't rely on outside performance can be as misleading as the ones that do.

All stats are tools. Good stats are good tools, bad stats are bad tools. Building a baseball team is like building a house, you need a lot of good tools to turn this stack of 2x4's into a house. Just using a hammer won't get the job done, even if it is the best hammer in the ****ing universe. But bad stats are unnecessary. You don't need that crazy straw to build your house.

BAD STATS - Rely heavily on the participation of outside influences (whether that be your teammates, arbitrary situations, or third parties).

Don't stats like OBP and BABIP rely on whether the pitchers teammates catch the ball or not? FIP assumes that balls put in play are average...ignores that the quality of the balls put in play depends on whether the pitcher got the better of the hitter or vice versa. Seems like a crap stat to me.

__________________"Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be."

Saying saves are not important =/= Saying bullpen is not important... Much in the same way saying a pitcher's win-loss record is not important =/= starting pitching is not important... Or saying runs batted in are not important =/= saying having good hitters at the top and middle of your lineup is not important.

These are all key components of a winning baseball team. Just those ways to analyze them are stupid.

Reading comprehension, Son. Mercy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SephClone89

Nobody said the bullpen isn't important.

Saying the bullpen is important and then getting a response saying I was brainwashed into thinking that would imply that they don't think the bullpen is important, no?

Anyway back to the trade...I'm all for it but I don't buy the notion that a good closer is easily replaceable. If that part of the bullpen is broke then it makes for a long season.

Don't stats like OBP and BABIP rely on whether the pitchers teammates catch the ball or not? FIP assumes that balls put in play are average...ignores that the quality of the balls put in play depends on whether the pitcher got the better of the hitter or vice versa. Seems like a crap stat to me.

Every stat will rely on some outside influence a bit, the question is how heavily do they rely on it. Comparing the amount of outside influence in OBP; I don't think you have to be too fanatical about baseball to notice that better hitters have higher OBP's and ****ty pitchers have high oOBP's. Compare that to saves, which requires your team to consistently get a 1-3 run lead in the 9th inning and for your manager to use you in those situations...

FWIW, last year Miguel Cabrera lead the AL in OBP, is there any doubt he's one of the very best hitters in the league right now? Whereas Jesse Crain notched exactly 0 saves, tied for worst in the AL. See what I mean?